Core ideas
What is matter Particles(matter) are eigenvalues of a wave equation(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf1ptt_the-primacy-of-consciousness-4-of-7_techundefined). Matter consists of atoms, going smaller one eventually reaches nothing, which implies that matter consists of nothing. This makes no sense. Everything exists only in a mind * objectivity does not need an object and testability is itself not testable. * If everything were to be Popper falsifiable, we would have a suspension of reason. * Asserting as Dawkins does that Pattern or design are not our only options violates the law of excluded middle(A or not A) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle * logic cannot be tested ,as the verification would have to use logic. * God's existence is as obvious as the laws of logic and thus cannot be proven. * Science is a dissimilar term for induction. * The Laws of nature is the reification of induction. * Induction, because it is either virtuously circular(Gen 8 induction) or rhetorical can only be used, not experienced. * Materialists are using volitionalistic language to express a world view where volition or will are illusions, resulting in Meaningless sentences. * Our usage of induction is justified by God , all his conclusions are contained in his premises by necessity because he knows everything. * Calvin's predestination makes the effects of faith unfalsifiable and facilitates the Retrospective determination fallacy. * Deriving conclusions from premises applies only to finite knowledge, under infinite knowledge all conclusions are contained in the premises by necessity. * Falsifiability isn't falsifiable, like logic isn't verifiable,preventing Agrippian regression of falsifiability. * Tautologies are the map to the territory of our experience, Zeno reified the law of excluded middle with his paradoxes. * "I Am That I Am" is the Virtuous Tautology that enables expression of experiences. * Gen.1, Rev.22, Exodus 3, Heb.6 is a trinity of logic: Law of Virtuous Identity(Exodus 3), Excluded Middle(Alpha/Omega,Day/Night Gen.1, Rev.22) and noncontradiction(Heb.6). Laws of logic * The Laws of Logic are the Agrippian bootstrapped fabric of our language. * There can't be physical evidence for God(Special pleading, in the same way the the laws of logic have no evidence. God is the evidence for the very concept of evidence and thus God can't have evidence for himself , preventing regression of evidences. * Attempting to prove God's existence is like setting out to prove Napoleon existed, it is an attempt to make them look ridiculous. Limit of infinity syllogism: * P1: The limits of our Platonic, antonymic language is the limit of our knowledge. (reaction to Wittgenstein) * P2: Infinity derives its meaning as the negation of finite. * C: Infinity is contained by our Platonic language. Irreducible complexity * Irreducible complexity or Irreducible Functionality is a usage of the law of excluded middle similar to how Induction is used to express falsifiable experiences. Dembski's Intelligent design movement is incorrect to view it as a falsifiable concept and have done great harm by this. * Intelligent design is a dissimilar term for IC, neither are falsifiable, which prevents Agrippian regression of design. Flow of time * None of your experiences was the experience of the flow of time, because time is a before/after concept, an imposition of the law of excluded middle. Time marks the point of an experience such as the heat of the sun and therefore its flow can't be experienced. * All experiences are expressed by that which cannot be experienced: the laws of logic. * Motion is a dissimilar term for here/there, this can't be divided by the law of excluded middle. * Design is a usage of the law of excluded middle, similar to how induction is used and not experienced.(Intelligent design) * All of language functions as the usage of the laws of logic and specifically the law of excluded middle. Natural selection * The oxymoron term Natural selection is the metaphor for Unintentional adaptation(acquisition of attributes). * Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism is as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics(David Berlinski) and thus is a Claim of logic. Godel * You can't prove anything if people know that you feel you have something to prove. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/543404830870765568 * The only way that it could be known that the person was a knight from the Knights and Knaves Godel example was if it could not be proven that the person was a knight. Analogous to this, the only way that we know God exists, is because it is impossible to prove that He exists, as we are unable to prove the laws of logic that we bootstrap into our language to express the concept of God our Father. Logical fallacies Numbers are an extension of the law of excluded middle, with '7' is meant either an increase from 6 or regression from 8 for example. The laws of logic enable the expression of the experience and numbers the ratiocination about the measurement: numbers and laws of logic cannot be experienced nor measured, preventing infinite regress (Fleeming . These laws only exist in a mind and aren't contingent on human minds, before the arrival of human minds the universe couldn't have both existed and not existed at the same time and manner(law of non-contradiction). Because we use them to express our experiences , it means our experiences also exist only in a mind(George Berkeley), preventing the reification of these laws. When Dan Barker stated to Bruggencate that he could be wrong about anything he did not think to apply the logic to the very assertion itself. The act of doubting is itself certain - certainty of the doubt. In order to be uncertain about everything, one must be certain about one thing,namely the assertion itself. Hence the position that one could be wrong about everything is self-refuting. [[Zeno's paradoxes :Zeno's point with his paradoxes was to ask: why is there nothing in between nothing and something? * Motion is an experience and not a tautological number, numbers are used to express said experience, Zeno reified the map. 119. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/berkeley1710_4.pdf ".....Arithmetic has been thought to have for its object abstract ideas of number. A considerable part of speculative knowledge is supposed to consist in understanding the properties and mutual relations of numbers. The belief in the pure and intellectual nature of numbers in the abstract has won for them the esteem of those thinkers who put on a show of having an uncommon subtlety and elevation of thought. It has put a price on the most trifling numerical theorems that are of no practical use and serve only to pass the time; and it has infected the minds of some people so much that they have dreamed of mighty mysteries involved in numbers, and tried to explain natural things by means of them. But if we look into our own thoughts, and consider the doctrines I have laid down, we may come to have a low opinion of those high flights and abstractions, and to look on all researches into numbers as mere earnest trivialities insofar as they aren’t practically useful in improving our lives....." ".....124 . Nothing can be more obvious to me than that the extended things I have in view are nothing but my own ideas, and it is equally obvious that I can’t break any one of my ideas down into an infinite number of other ideas—which is to say that none of them is infinitely divisible. If ‘finite extension’ means something distinct from a finite idea, I declare that I don’t know what it means, and so cannot affirm or deny anything regarding it. But if the terms ‘extension’, ‘parts’, and the like are given any meaning that we can conceive, that is, are taken to stand for ideas, then to say ‘a finite quantity or extension consists of infinitely many parts’ is so obvious a contradiction that everyone sees at a glance that it is so ...." Zeno's arrow exists only as an idea, his idea cannot be divided into infinite number of other ideas. Motion isn't a number, like experience isn't logic, the map isn't the territory. Zeno's paradoxes commits the Reification fallacy of the law of excluded middle. Numbers and physics equations are the map to the territory of our experience, but not the experience. Sometimes the interaction of matter and energy corresponds to a tautology but not under all conditions. 1+1 apple = 2 apples under the force of gravity, but under the force of a blender blade it equals one unit of juice(1+1=1). When we ratiocinate about our experiences with apples, we are not faced with a seeming insurmountable philosophical problem as with Zeno, because mathematical tautologies are not being reified or made concrete as with Zeno. Malthus population theory derives from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. I am not sure about this, but I think Smith and Malthus committed the reification fallacy. The structure of their argument corresponds to a tautology(apples example) under certain conditions(closed mathematical set), but not all conditions. This is why the question was raised as to how Malthus could have been shown to be wrong by experimental observation as published in journal papers, if Malthus theory was a tautology. My pending solution to this is that once the subtle reification is unearthed, the tautology question is not raised, as it isn't raised with the apples example. Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' reified a closed mathematical set, the actual reason for economic growth is technological breakthroughs such as the computer. Intra competition is but a peripheral matter, a side-effect. On RTnews a guest said "The economy must liberate us and not dominate us". An economy like a university is not a physical institution, his economy statement reified the economy. Knowledge paradox Knowledge''' paradox''' must be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes In order to know anything you must know everything, to prevent what you don't know from contradicting what you do know. We know for certain that we don't know everything, how could we know this if we have to know everything in the first place? Syllogism: * p1: We are certain that we don't know everything. * p2: To be certain about anything you must know everything * C: We have been revealed limited knowledge by God who knows everything, which implies that he has made his existence obvious and that attempting to prove his existence is as futile as proving the laws of logic. Bias Event the assertion that we must not be biased, is biased for not being biased. Everybody is biased, biases change. Forces are not logic http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006/07/pamela-winnicks-science-envy.html "....Some theories are better supported than others; only the really well-supported theories, such as gravity and evolution, can be considered as similar to facts, keeping in mind that in science every explanation is provisional...." Shallit confuses a force - gravity- with a premise 'Evolution'. Under the rubric of evolution is the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past, there is no falsifiable mechanism theory as to how the conclusion that attributes were acquired from nothing could have transpired. Can prove non-existence of something http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C64tuvmZwgc wl craig fitness fitness, variation etc. are all dissimilar terms for adaptation, which is the acquisition conclusion from the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past. Evolutionary narrative invokes the conclusion as the mechanism. What is needed ia a mechanism to bind the conclusion to the premise, which Agrippa has shown to be impossible: the more complicated your argument, the more obfuscated the underlying circularity. Adaption , therefore Adaptation. Because of God, therefore God. Either rhetorical or virtuous. Logic invoked as force Darwin took a Claim of logic and invoked it as a force. Category:Logical fallacies